Movement Charter/Community Consultations/2023/Kashmiri Community

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

General Information[edit]

  • Feedback channels: List of community channels from which the feedback is collected (wikis, social media, live meetings, etc.): Online meetings & discord server.
  • Number of participants: 8



Open Questions regarding Fund Dissemination
  • What role should the Global Council have in fund dissemination?
    • Oversight or review of WMF decisions
    • Coordination with WMF
    • Other (please elaborate)
  • Should there be a committee that reports to the Global Council and handles central/cross-regional fund dissemination?
  • What should be the Global Council’s role with regards to the allocation of the funds within the WMF?
    • The Global Council should be consulted on the allocation of the funds within the WMF.
    • The Global Council should have no role in the allocation of the funds within the WMF and only be informed.
    • Other (please elaborate)
  • The majority supports assigning a review role to the global council, as endorsed by the community. A minority advocates for a collaborative role for the global council. (6:1)
  • Yes, there should be a commitee that reports to the Global Council and handles central/cross-regional fund dissemination.
  • The majority supports Council should should be informed of the allocations. (+7) Council should work with WMF to allocate fund. (+1)
Open Questions regarding Structure
  • Should the Global Council exist only as an executive body or should it exist as an executive body with an advisory board? (See scenarios below)
    • If the Global Council is an executive body with an advisory board, how are the members of both entities (executive body and advisory board) seated?
  • With its size, the Global Council must have adequate diversity and clout, but not be so large as to undermine effectiveness. As an executive body, how many members should the Global Council have?
    • Option 1: 9-13 members
    • Option 2: 17-21 members
  • The community endorses the idea of the Global Council serving as an executive body with an advisory board, emphasizing the need to maintain diversity and foster efficient and fast decision-making.
  • The executive body is recommended to be comparatively compact in size than advisory board. The advisory board should encompass members from diverse communities to encompass a broad spectrum of perspectives
  • The suggestion was of a body to include diversity, participation from smaller communities so that their voice can be heard. It was suggested that an executive body should be smaller but it should have a larger advisory board. Consider community-specific matters through an advisory board perspective.
Open Questions regarding Membership

With an intention to ensure fair representation, power balance, and promote diversity and inclusivity within the Global Council, we seek your inputs on the following:

  1. Should there be some imposed limits to the membership in terms of movement representation?

Please share your opinions about potential criteria of such limits:

  1. Should there be a regional cap, e.g. max 3 persons from a single region? If yes, please specify the condition.
  2. Should there be a home project or entity cap, e.g. max 2 persons from a single wiki project or affiliate? If yes, please specify the condition.
  3. Should there be a specific cap for large[1] language communities, projects, or affiliates, e.g. not more than 5 seats from between the 5 largest projects? If yes, please specify the condition.
  4. Should there be any other limits for Global Council membership? If yes, please specify the condition.

  • Limits should be established to ensure diverse representation. However, caution must be exercised to prevent these boundaries from excessively limiting expertise.
  • The community endorsed the concept of a regional cap in alignment with Wikimedia regions to ensure fair representation across all regions. While there was no specific recommendation for the maximum limit, there was consensus in favor of having at least one candidate from each region
  • Community supports the idea of limiting to a maximum of two representatives from one affiliates (1 staff, 1 member) to have representation for others & promote diversity. Specific numbers may vary based on size, with no strong suggestions for wiki projects, as supported by the community.
  • The community proposed limiting the representation of WMF staff on the advisory board to a maximum of one member, with the aim of reshaping the Global Council into a body primarily dedicated to its review function.

Other feedback about the draft chapter:

  • ... "In this new structure, AffCom is tasked to verify that affiliates are actively aiding the projects’ functioning", the idea was supported by the community and the community is of the view that AffCom should provide a response to the Affiliates and review their annual activity and provide suggestions for improvement.
  • ...
  • ...


Community Question: Should there be a limit to how many hubs an affiliate can join? (Please elaborate on your answer.)

The community advocates that an affiliate should be ablle to simultaneously join only two hubs—one regional and one thematic. This limitation is intended to prevent affiliates from unnecessarily joining multiple hubs. If the need for knowledge exchange necessitates joining multiple hubs, the concept of hubs appears to be ineffective in this regards. Additionally, an affiliate should have the ability to vote in only one hub if hubs are consulted for any decision-making process.

Other feedback about the draft chapter:

  • ... The Community is of the view that in parallel to the creation of hubs, we should take steps to strengthen the already existing affliate structures such as Usergroups and Chapters. It is imperative to support these basic structures directly.
  • ... Each hub should be established with a minimum of three founding members. While two affiliates can collaborate effectively without forming a hub, having three members in a hub is essential to guarantee diversity within the hub.
  • ...


  • ... Change "there is no limit to the contribution a volunteer can make" to "There is no limit to the positive contribution a volunteer can make, provided that their edits align with the policies of various Wikimedia projects" or a similar wording. This amendment is recommended to ensure alignment with the movement-wide implementation outlined in the charter.
  • ... Volunteers contribute significant time to foster project growth and drive movements forward. It's crucial to highlight how the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) can supports volunteers in addressing any threats editors may encounter while actively participating in these endeavors.
  • ... "In true emergencies, the Global Council or WMF may act within their authority, but must provide a similar explanation afterwards", Regarding 'Afterwards,' it is recommended to specify a defined time duration for clarity.


  • ... The Kashmiri Community expressed their appreciation for the glossary draft, noting its helpfulness in enabling users to navigate various definitions.
  • ... There is no mention of "Wikimedia Enterprise" in glossary.
  • ...

Miscellaneous feedback

  • ...
  • ... . It was suggested that the final charter should incorporate hyperlinked meanings of the words for enhanced accessibility.
  • ...
  1. As determined by number of active editors for projects and voting members for affiliates